Re: Natural vs synthetic

It does make sense to develop some standards for what we mean by "natural", and this is somehing we all ought to admit.

For most corporations, as I see it, the value of any word used in a commercial context equals the amount of shareholder wealth that word contributes to, not the truth value, or meaning of the word. So the word "natural" is merely an instrument for the end of profit, not a unit of information, as is the case in the rest of life.

For the next commercial offering, I intend to use the word "natural" on my packaging. I also intend to have a paragraph defining exactly what I mean by "natural". Nothing will be left to the imagination, basically, including my own imperfections thereof. That is how I will handle it. I personally don't need the term defined because I intend to define it better than any assumed standards could. But most will not use this method. The rest of the industry could use to have these standards.

The point isn't that something has to be natural, in other words. The point is clear communication to consumers. That's just my impression. Perhaps I am wrong.

Re: Natural vs synthetic

Originally Posted by DrSmellThis

It does make sense to develop some standards for what we mean by "natural", and this is somehing we all ought to admit.

For most corporations, as I see it, the value of any word used in a commercial context equals the amount of shareholder wealth that word contributes to, not the truth value, or meaning of the word. So the word "natural" is merely an instrument for the end of profit, not a unit of information, as is the case in the rest of life.

For the next commercial offering, I intend to use the word "natural" on my packaging. I also intend to have a paragraph defining exactly what I mean by "natural". Nothing will be left to the imagination, basically, including my own imperfections thereof. That is how I will handle it. I personally don't need the term defined because I intend to define it better than any assumed standards could. But most will not use this method. I'm a rather odd character. The rest of the industry could use to have these standards.

The point isn't that something has to be natural, in other words. The point is clear communication to consumers. That's just my impression. Perhaps I am wrong.

Honestly I don't think you are odd in that sense at all because I think that a declaration should be made as to what is meant by natural and that declaration should be explicit rather than implicit. When you have an authoritarian body defining a word for use it's still variable and in some ways more insidious because people come to trust that word over knowing it's true definition. Take for instance the term "organic", it means a lot of things as has been pointed out in a previous post, but in the context of food most people trust that it means something in particular. Unfortunately there are a couple of different ways in which "organic" is certified by the food industry in the US. What most people want organic to mean is probably closer to the Oregon Tilth certification for Organic foodstuffs, it's a more stringent standard. Unfortunately there is also USDA certified organic and this is where things get hairy, if something is certified USDA organic it only has to be something like 70-75% organic (I forget the exact percentage), the rest can be run of the mill GMO. Part of the reason that the standards are variable and prone to flux is corporate meddling/lobbying to change the standard. A lot of this standard flux has to do with pollen floating into organic fields, etc. Anyway, I don't see why this won't happen with a "certified natural" perfume product too. People come to trust in an official certification rather than the explicit declarations made by each company. I think the law should state that the company itself has to write an explicit declaration like what you are doing. Unfortunately we all know that despite certifications and declarations there is always room for adultery in the product known or unknown and from many hands and there is always the intentional flub for the sake of value added, higher selling price, mistique and prestige/status.

This kind of thing happens in the herbal supplement market as well. Some herbal supplement companies do organoleptic AND GC/MS on the herbs or tinctures in order to assess it's quality, I only know of a few companies that do this because of my wifes prior involvement in the industry. The rest of the companies are too small and don't do much besides taste it but that can be misleading regardless of how good one thinks they are at tasting the difference . As a result many small companies put out garbage product, claiming to be this or that but it might actually be saw dust or any number of different plant materials. In fact many of the big brands are crap too because they don't certify organic but only make claims as to the product identity when in fact they just bottle it up and ship it out.

Anyway, this is all my own thoughts, theories and opinions on the concept based on my experiences and those of my wife.

Re: Natural vs synthetic

Me, thinking: "I think it's just like the term 'organic', and the Oregon standards for that, and ... wait, this guy is talking just like everybody else I have known in Oregon, and he's making my point better than I could, and wait.. he is from Oregon!" Anyway, I agree with you, fellow Oregonian. Minor quibble is just that I do think these confusing standards are better than nothing. Yes, it can be almost as insidious, but the key term is "almost". The authoritarian entity is merely enforcing clarity in communication to some minimal extent, hopefully. Nowadays, somebody can say, "Natural!!!", and maybe all that means is that "something in my product might be somewhat natural in some way, like the box."

Re: Natural vs synthetic

Originally Posted by DrSmellThis

Me, thinking: "I think it's just like the term 'organic', and the Oregon standards for that, and ... wait, this guy is talking just like everybody else I have known in Oregon, and he's making my point for me better than I could, and wait.. that's because he's from Oregon!" Anyway, I agree with you, fellow Oregonian.

Hahaha, yeah, we Oregonians get a good education on such things when we are so inclined, it's woven into the social fabric. Where are you in Oregon?

I've talked to a couple of people who used to work at Oregon tilth, I took a guitar building class at OSU, that's where I met them. They told me, a few years ago, that even Oregon tilth has drastically reduced it's standards and that it's all a moot point anyway (although they didn't elaborate on what that meant), sad I believe that these are the kind of issues we would have to deal with when it comes to any official standard in perfumery imho.

Re: Natural vs synthetic

Portland, until just recently -- the home of Liberty Natural Products. It was nice to place a big order and merely take a short drive to pick everything up, like if Chris lived across the street from Hermitage. But I digress...

Re: Natural vs synthetic

Originally Posted by DrSmellThis

It does make sense to develop some standards for what we mean by "natural", and this is somehing we all ought to admit.

For most corporations, as I see it, the value of any word used in a commercial context equals the amount of shareholder wealth that word contributes to, not the truth value, or meaning of the word. So the word "natural" is merely an instrument for the end of profit, not a unit of information, as is the case in the rest of life.

For the next commercial offering, I intend to use the word "natural" on my packaging. I also intend to have a paragraph defining exactly what I mean by "natural". Nothing will be left to the imagination, basically, including my own imperfections thereof. That is how I will handle it. I personally don't need the term defined because I intend to define it better than any assumed standards could. But most will not use this method. The rest of the industry could use to have these standards.

The point isn't that something has to be natural, in other words. The point is clear communication to consumers. That's just my impression. Perhaps I am wrong.

Re: Natural vs synthetic

Originally Posted by luigi_g

well of course, it is for those houses, and batches, like you mentioned for consistency, and their captive blends...
like one meat company will blend a specific ratio of pork to beef for a proprietary hot dog...

but that doesn't apply across the board for all essential oils as you first mentioned, that was a bit misleading...
thats all, i was asking

In my experience it was commonplace; Chris backs me up on this. I'm quite sure that expensive aromachemicals are treated in the same way although it is much easier to find out. Aromachemicals are simpler mixtures of isomers of the same chemical; the amounts and ratios should be consistent. And to repeat; it doesn't matter so long as the quality is consistent and what the user of the material wants.

It is very difficult for a beginner to know what the right quality should be, if he has never smelled good quality before; and I'm not use how this can be achieved. All quality control requires a standard, a sample that is of the correct quality; if you don't have that, how do you start?

Re: Natural vs synthetic

i think the answer to that is a no brainer.... who says it is not natural?

let me ask you this,
would alpha-ionone made by an approved EU natural method, part of which might include a fermention step
be natural alpha-ionone?

I don't know. I don't get into the "natural" debate. I'm just curious what standards natural perfumers tend to settle on, and exactly why they choose them, specifically with regards to fermentation, because there's a human-induced chemical reaction going on there, so it rather implies any nature-identical molecule should count as "natural" if fermentation is allowed.